get_pending_fixes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'List fixes awaiting confirmation' and includes a cryptic '[mode: real]' prefix. It does not describe the output format, ordering, whether it is read-only (though implied by 'List'), or what happens when no fixes are pending. The lack of output schema further increases the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains zero filler or redundant information. It is perfectly concise for the simple function it describes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what a 'pending fix' is, what the return value looks like, how it connects to sibling tools like confirm_fix or apply_fix, or the meaning of '[mode: real]'. This incomplete context could leave an agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes one parameter, projectPath, with no description (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'for the project', which loosely hints at the parameter's purpose, but it does not explicitly explain that projectPath identifies the project to query. The description adds negligible semantic value beyond the parameter's name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List fixes awaiting confirmation for the project' clearly states the specific verb ('List'), the resource ('fixes awaiting confirmation'), and the scope ('for the project'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_fix and apply_fix, which perform mutations rather than read-only listing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied: this tool is used to retrieve pending fixes before confirmation or application. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied context is clear enough for a simple list tool, but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.